High Court · 2025

Landlord challenged t he said order dat ed

15.01.2011, by filing Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 468 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dat ed

31.03.2014. Order passed by coordinat e Bench in t he 5 said writ pet it ion is reproduced below: - “ Learned counsel for bot h t he part ies subm it t hat t here is no requirem ent of any lease agreem ent for invoking Sect ion 29( A) of t he U.P. Ur ban Buildings ( Regulat ion of Let t ing, Rent and Evict ion) Act , 1972. Having placed reliance on t he j udgm ent of Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Trust Jam a Masj id Waqf. No. 31 Vs. Lakshm i Talkies and ot hers report ed in 2010 ( 9) SCC 78, learned counsel for bot h t he part ies subm it t ed t hat m at t er should be rem it t ed back t o t he Dist r ict Magist rat e t o decide t he applicat ion m oved under Sect ion 29( A) of t he U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 afresh in accordance wit h law, w it hin such st ipulat ed t im e, as t his Court m ay deem fit . Wit h t he consent of learned counsel for bot h t he part ies, present pet it ion is being disposed of wit h follow ing direct ions: i. I m pugned j udgm ent and order rej ect ing t he applicat ion under Sect ion 29 ( A) of t he U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is hereby quashed. ii. Mat t er is rem anded back t o t he Dist r ict Magist rat e t o proceed afresh, in accordance wit h law, aft er giving sufficient opport unit y t o bot h t he part ies t o place on record t heir respect ive evidence on t he quest ion of valuat ion of propert y and t o decide t he m at t er afresh, aft er hearing bot h t he part ies. iii. Part ies shall appear before t he Dist rict Magist rat e on 22.04.2014 furt her orders. Thereaft er, Dist r ict Magist rat e shall fix t he dat e in t he m at t er and shall m ake every endeavour t o t he decide t he m at t er afresh in accordance wit h law preferably wit hin next six m ont hs.”

9. I t t ranspires t hat landlord applicat ion before Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar under Sect ion 29-A ( 5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, in which, it was st at ed t hat t he m arket value of t he land in quest ion is `1,30,000/ - per square m et er, t herefore, m arket value of t he land is ` 12,08,16,800/ - .

10. Pet it ioner obj ect ion t o landlord’s applicat ion. Dist rict Magist rat e decided t he applicat ion filed by landlord, vide order dat ed 19.01.2015 and 6 t he t hat finding ret urned a is valued at `1,20,000/ - per square m et er and t he m arket value of t he land was det erm ined as `11,15,23,200/ - and t he pet it ioner was direct ed t o pay `9,29,360/ - as m ont hly rent t o t he landlord, w.e.f. 01.01.2008 and pet it ioner was direct ed t o pay `7,80,66,240/ - as arrears of rent bet ween 01.01- 2008 t o 31.12.2014.

11. The order passed by Dist rict Magist rat e is challenged by HPCL on t he following grounds: - ( i) The earlier applicat ion filed by landlord on

25.11.2008, was rej ect ed by Sub Divisional Magist rat e, Kashipur and in his writ pet it ion, coordinat e Bench of t his Court quashed t he rej ect ion order and rem anded t he m at t er back t o Dist rict Magist rat e for reconsidering landlord’s applicat ion, t herefore, fresh applicat ion wit h new valuat ion could not have been filed by t he landlord t he Dist rict Magist rat e erred in allowing t he subsequent applicat ion and not considering t he applicat ion which st ood rest ored t o t he file in view of j udgm ent of t his Court . ( ii) I n t he earlier applicat ion, filed in 2008, respondent him self valued t he land at `1,02,22,960/ - , t herefore, t he value of t he land could not have been raised t o `12,08,16,800/ - in t he subsequent applicat ion filed in 2014, as it am ount s t o t welve t im es increase in t he valuat ion of land wit hin a short span of six years. 7 ( iii) Dist rict Magist rat e relied upon valuat ion report dat ed 05.05.2014 for det erm inat ion of annual rent w.e.f. 01.01.2008, which is im perm issible. Market value of a propert y keeps on increasing wit h each passing year, t herefore, t oday’s m arket value cannot be relied for det erm ining rent for a period several years ago. ( iv) Valuat ion report relied by landlord was procured from a privat e valuer, who is not approved by t he Governm ent , and t he valuer was also not exam ined as wit ness t he proceedings before Dist rict Magist rat e.

12. Mr. Udit Bansal, learned counsel appearing t he landlord ( respondent ) subm it t ed t hat ( i) pet it ioner in his reply filed before Dist rict Magist rat e did raise any obj ect ion against filing of second applicat ion by landlord nor did he disput e t he valuat ion t he propert y, as m ent ioned t he subsequent applicat ion of t he landlord; ( ii) price of land in t he localit y increased exponent ially bet ween 2008 t o 2014 t o growt h of business and indust rialisat ion nearby areas; ( iii) valuat ion in t he earlier applicat ion was m ade as per circle rat e; while, in t he applicat ion in 2014, t he m arket value of t he land was 8 m ent ioned and Dist rict Magist rat e, aft er considering ent ire m at erial, correct ly det erm ined t he m arket value as `11,15,23,200/ - ; and ( iv) in his reply, filed before Dist rict Magist rat e, pet it ioner did not quest ion t he aut horit y of t he valuer t o assess m arket value of t he land.

13. Upon considering t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, t his Court is of t he considered opinion t hat t he im pugned order dat ed 19.01.2015 cannot be sust ained in t he eyes of law, as assessm ent of m arket value m ade by valuer, on 05.05.2014, cannot be m ade t he basis for det erm ining m arket value of t he land for 2008, especially when in t he earlier applicat ion filed in 2008, landlord has valued t he land at `1,02,27,960/ - ; while in t he subsequent applicat ion, value of t he land was m ent ioned as `12,08,16,800/ - . Dist rict Magist rat e was not j ust ified in relying upon valuer ’s report dat ed

05.05.2014 for det erm ining value of t he land w.e.f.

01.01.2008, especially when t he t wo applicat ions filed by landlord indicat ed t welve t im es increase in m arket value, wit hin a short span of six years.

14. Even ot herwise also, coordinat e Bench of t his Court while set t ing aside t he order, whereby earlier applicat ion filed by landlord in 2008 was rej ect ed, had 9 rem anded t he m at t er back t o t he Dist rict Magist rat e t o decide t he applicat ion afresh.

15. The effect of t he order passed by coordinat e Bench was t o revive t he earlier proceedings, which were inst it ut ed by t he landlord in t he year 2008. Thus, filing of anot her applicat ion in 2014 was not proper and value of t he indicat ed t he subsequent applicat ion could not have been considered det erm ining rent from 01.01.2008. Since t his goes t o t he root of t he m at t er, t herefore, landlord cannot succeed m erely because t enant did not raise any obj ect ion against second applicat ion.

16. I n such view of t he m at t er, t he im pugned order dat ed 19.01.2015, passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar is set aside. The writ pet it ion is allowed. Dist rict Magist rat e is direct ed t o decide t he applicat ion filed by respondent on 25.11.2008, as per law, wit hin nine m ont hs from dat e of product ion of cert ified copy of t his order. W r i t Pe t i t i o n M i s c. Si n g l e N o . 3 2 2 1 o f 2 0 1 5

17. Mr. Pram od Kum ar Agarwal, landlord, has also filed a writ pet it ion challenging t hat part of t he order dat ed 19.01.2015, passed by Dist rict Magist rat e, Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Sect ion 29-A 10 ( 5) of Act No. 13 of 1972, which provides t hat t he enhanced rent would be payable t o him only wit h effect from 01.01.2008. Pet it ioner cont ends t hat he is ent it led t o enhanced rent wit h effect from 05.07.1976.

18. The prayer m ade by landlord cannot be grant ed in view of his adm ission m ade in t he first applicat ion filed under Sect ion 29-A( 5) of t he Act No. 13 of 1972 t hat his fat her received rent at t he rat e of `150/ - per m ont h from M/ s Hindust an Pet roleum Corporat ion Lim it ed upt o 31.03.1989.

19. Accordingly, Writ Pet it ion ( M/ S) No. 3221 of 2015 is dism issed. ___________________________ M A N OJ K U M A R TI W A RI , J. Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb90 46f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103 819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB 21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 11